Seventh Day Baptist Address to Baptists in America, 1843

8/7/2019 Seventh Day Baptist Address to Baptists in America, 1843

1/28


2/28

IMPORTANT NEW WORKAZilSOSr FOn ONB DOZiXiARI!NEARLY READY,

AT THE NEW WORLD OFFICE, NO. 30 ANN STREET, INONE LARGE AND SPLENDID VOLUME,OCTAVO SIZE, ON NEW LONG-FRIMER TYPE,ALISON'SHISTORY OF EUROPE,FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THEFRENCH REVOLUTION IN 1789,

TO THEEESTOEATION OF THE BOURBONS IN 1815.

ABRIDGED FOR THE USE OF GENERAL READERS, COLLEGES, ACADEMIES, ANDOTHER SEMINARIES OF LEARNING,BY EDWARD^S. GOULD.Tins splendid volume embraces the most complete, perspicuous, and comprehensive History of Europe,

during the sto-my period froiii 1789 to 1815, wliich iias ever been given to the world. It is a perfect abridgementof Alisonhis errors exceptedin elegant language and clear style ; and will prove far more acceptable to thereader than tlie verbose original.Price only One Dollaii. A liberal discount to the trade. Cash orders solicited.

Address, post-paid. J. WINCHESTER, 30 Ann street, N. Y.

BOOKS FOR THE PEOPLE,PUBLISHED BYJ. WINCHESTER, NEW WOULD PRESS, NO. 30 ANN STREET, NEW YORK,

TO WHO.M ALL ORDERS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.Many a book, which is abandoned to tite waters, is waj'ted to some remote shore, and there proves a blessingand a coiitfort to luillions who are ignorant whence it came.Borrow's Bible in Spain.THE BIBLE IN SPAIN: or, The Journeys. Ad-venture*. and Imprisonments of an Englishman,in an attempt to circulate the Scriptures in Spain.Hy George Borrow, author of the "Gipsies inSpain." Seventh edition. 25 cents.THE ZINCALl ; or, an Account of the Gipsies ofSp;iiii. By George Borrow, author of the " Bibleill Siinin." Sixth edition. 25 cents.THE IRISH SKKTCH-BOOK. By M. A. Tit-marsh, R


3/28

UCSB LIBRARY y-6'6^^2^AN

ADDRESSBAPTIST DENOMINATIONJ

UNITED STATES.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH:FROM THE

SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST GENERA! CONFERENCE,

" Come DOW, lt us reawn toi6Uier."->IMiali 1: 18,

NEW-rORK:5r.\'.WlNCHESTER, NIJW WORLD PRESS,

30 AKM.BTAEBT-184 3.


4/28

Digitized by the Internet Archivein 2007 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

ft *v

http://www.archive.org/details/addresstobaptistOOseveiala


5/28

The General Conference of Seventh-Day Baptists was convened at Plainficld, NewJersey, on the 3rd day of September, 1843. The delegates were generally impressedthat the time had come when the denomination should make increased and vigorousefforts to promote the doctrine of the Bible concerning the Sabbath. The following re.solutions were therefore submitted by Paul Stillman, of New-York, and unanimouslyadopted.

" Resolved, in view of the imperious duty devolving upon us to publish the truth ofGod to the world, that it is advisable to make an appeal to the various orders of Christians,in reference to the Sabbath of the Bible, urging them to a thorough examination of thpsubject, as one of great importance to the cause of God.

" Resolved, in accordance with the object of the foregoing resolution, that a coiiiinittcebe appointed to prepare an address to our brethren of the Baptist Denomination, to hnissued under the sanction of the General Conference."Thomas B. Brown, Paul Stillman, and Nathan V. Hull, were appointed a Committee

for the above purpose, who subsequently presented the following address, which wasunanimously approved by the Conference ; and measures were taken for its publication,and extensive circulation among the order of Christians particularly addressed.

DAVID DUN^. Moderator.i'HOMAS B. Brown, Recording Secretary.Paul Stillman, ) . . ,. ' . "*'A. D. TiTswoETH, \ Assistant Recording Secretaries.,


6/28


7/28

ADDRESS.

The Seventh-Day Baptist General Conference, to the MembersOF the Baptist Denomination throughout the United States,HOLDING to the OBSERVATION OF THE FiRST DaY OF THE WeeKAS A Divine Institution.

Beloved Brethren :When our Divine Redeemer dwelt on earth, he

prayed that all his disciples might be "made perfect in one." As thisprayer was in harmony with the sure word of prophecy, which instructsus to look for a time when " the watchmen shall see, eye to eye, andsing with united voice," we are sure that it will ultimately be answered.We see nothing, however, to warrant us in looking for such a happyconsummation, while we contemplate the multiplied divisions of theChristian world, perpetuated, as they are, by the selfishness of humannature. Here the prospect is dark indeed. But we have an unshakenconfidence in the power of Gfod to bring about his own purposes, notwith-standing all the devices of men. " The hearts of all are in his hands,and he tumeth them whithersoever he will." He that made " the multi-tude of one heart and of one soul," in the first age of the church, canagain concentrate his scattered bands, break down every wall of separa-tion, and enlighten every mind by the effusion of his Spirit. Then shallZion move forth " clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."We rejoice, brethren, that you, as well as ourselves, are looking Ibrthis day of glory. Moreover, we have knowledge of your firm persua-sion, that this glorious union of the now scattered forces of Israel, can beeflfected only upon the basis of divine truth. With a single glance yousee the fallacy of that reasoning, which calls upon you, for the sake ofunion, to sacrifice the least particle of God's word. You have learned


8/28

6 APPEAL ]?0a I'HE SAfiBATH,that the smallest atom of truth has sweetness in it, like its Author, andis more precious than fine gold. That meagreness of piety which finds" non-essentials" in the appointments of Jehovah, you cannot abide.Your language is, " We esteem all thy precepts concerning all thingsto be right, and we hate every false way."We know, moreover, that it is the desire of your hearts, that all dissen-sions between Christians should be for ever ended. For this object youare laboring and praying : and while you are doing so, you have the en-lightened conviction, that your labors and prayers will be more abundantlysuccessful, in proportion to the amount of truth with which your ownminds are imbued, and which you can bring to bear upon the minds ofothers. Laboring as you do to expound to others the way of the Lordmore perfectly, we cannot suppose that you are yourselves unwilling tolearn. We, therefore, approach you with confidence, affectionately andearnestly requesting you to take into consideration the subject which isthe only ground of difference between you and us. We conceive it to bea subject of great importance ; and though some of you may have madeit a matter of thought, we are persuaded that the great body of your de-nomination have dismissed it without any particular investigation. Indeed,we speak not unadvisedly when we say, that on this question, the wholechurch of God have been hushed to sleep. In urging it upon your atten-tion, we think you will not charge us with wishing to raise disturbancein Zion. We indulge the hope that you will impute to us the same dis-interestedness of motive by which you yourselves are actuated, when youboldly proclaim your denominational sentiments upon every high place,and scatter your publications in every direction. Your course springsnot from any wish to foment disturbance, but from the pain which yourhearts feel to see the institutions of Christ made void by the traditions ofmen. Our action in this matter springs from the same principle. Wefeel in regard to the Sabbath just as you do with regai'd to baptism.We declare before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, that we are governedby a desire for your good and God's glory.When we look over your large and influential denomination, we find,that, in reference to the subject upon which we now address you, you aredivided into about three classes. I. Those who, acknowledging the per-petuity of the Sabbath-law, enforce the observance of the Sabbath by thefourth commandment, but change the day of its celebration from theseventh to the first day of the week. II. Those who see the impossibilityof proving a change of the day, and, therefore, regard the commandmMitas abolished by the death of Christ. But, at the same time, they considerthe first day of the week as an institution entirely new, to be regulated asto its observance wholly by the New Testament. III. Those who con-sider neither the Old nor the New Testament to impose any obligationupon them to observe a day of rest, and advocate one merely on theground of expediency.


9/28

ADDRESSED TO THE BAPTISTS. 7I. First, we address those of you who acknowledge the obligation of a

Sabbath, but change the day of its celebration from the seventh to thejirstday of the week. We may be wanting in discernment, but it really ap-pears to us, that in making the particular day to be observed to standupon New Testament authority, and yet deriving all the obligation tosabbatize on that day from the Law, there is a departure fVom the greatprinciple contended for by Baptists, that the extent and bearing of a law,both as to the duties it enjoins and the objects on which it terminates, areto be learned from the law itself, and not from other sources. On thisprinciple you reject the logic of Pedobaptists, who, while they find theordinance of baptism in the New Testament, go back to the law of circum-cision to determine the subjects. You tell them, and very justly too, thatthe laio of the institution is the only rule of obedience. But do you notfall into the same error, when the argument has respect to the Sabbath 1We can see no more fitness in applying the law of the Sabbath to the firstday of the week, than in applying the law of circumcision to the subjectsof baptism. For the law of circumcision was not more expressly confinedto the fleshly seed of Abraham, than was the law of the Sabbath to theseventh day of the week. The true principle is that every institution isto be determined by its own law. Therefore, if the first day of theweek is an institution binding upon us, the law to regulate its observanceshould be looked for where we find the institution. Be pleased, brethren,to review this argument, and see if you are not treading on Pedobaptistground.

In justification of this change of the day, we often hear you plead theexample of Christ and his apostles. But where do we find anythingto this effect in their example 1 Did the apostles sabbatize on the firstday of the week ? Did the churches which were organized by themdo so 1 Observe with marked attention, the question between you and usis NOT, Did tliey meet together and hold worship on that day ? but, Didthey sabbatize ? that is, did they REST FROM THEIR LABOR on thefirst day of the week ? Did they observe it AS a Sabbath ? This is thetrue issue. We have often asked this question, but the only answerthat we have received has been, that they assembled for worship. Butthis is not a candid way of meeting the point. It is in reality an answerto a very different question from the one we ask. Brethren, act out yourown principles. Come up square to the question. When you ask aPedobaptist, Did Christ baptize, or authorize the baptism of little children?you expect him to make some other reply than, " He put his hands onthem and prayed.'"' When you ask. Did the apostles baptize infant babes 1you are not well pleased with the reply, Tliey baptized hotiseholds. Yourquestion was with regard io little babesthe baptism of them. If, there-fore, when we ask you. Did the apostles and primitive Christians sabbatizeon the first day of the week ? you merely reply as above, we do not seebut you are guilty of the very same sophistry you ?ire so ready to charge


10/28

S APPEAL F6ft Td SABBATH,upon your Pedobaptist brethren. Your adroit evasion of the real ques-tion seems to place you much in the same predicament as were thePharisees, when Christ asked them whence was the baptism of John. Itappears as if you reasoned with yourselves, and said, " If we shall saythey did sabbatize on the first day of the week, the evidence will becalled for, and we cannot find it ; but if we shall say they did not, wefoar the day will lose its sacredness in the eyes of the people." We donot by any means wish to charge you with a Phari aic lack of principle,but we put it to your sober judgment, whether your position is not anawkward one. Brethren, reconsider this point, and see if you are not onPedobaptist ground.

If the apostles did not sabbatize on the first day of the week, then itfollows, as a matter of course, that whatever notoriety or dignity belongedto it, they did not regard it as a substitute for the Sabbath. Consequently,unless the Sabbath law was entirely abrogated by the death of Christ, theold Sabbath, as instituted in Paradise, and rehearsed from Sinai, con-tinues yet binding, as "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."But more than thus. Even if it could be proved, that the apostles and

primitive Christians did actually regard the first day of the week as aSabbath, it would not follow that the old Sabbath is no longer in force,unless it could be proved that they considered the new as a SUBSTI-TUTE for the old ; or, that so far as the particular day was concerned,it was of a CEREMONIAL character. But where do we find proof foreither of these ? In the whole record of the transactions and teachingsof the apostles, where do we find this idea of substitution ? Nowhere.Where do we find evidence that, so far as the particular day was con-cemed, it was ceremonial, and, therefore, to cease at the death of Christ ?Nowhere. The same argument that proves the Sabbath law not to beceremonial, proves the same of the day. Did the Sabbath law originatein Paradise, when man was innocent, and had no need of a Redeemer ?So did the day. It was then sanctified and blessed. Does the Sabbathlaw take cognizance of the relation on which all the precepts of the morallaw are founded, viz., the relation we sustain to Gk)d as creatures to Cre-ator ? So does the day. It is a memorial of this relation, and of therest entered into by Grod after he, by his work, had established the rela-tion. It appears then, that neither the Sabbath late, nor the day it enjoins,was of a ceremonial character. True, it is not moral, in the strictestsense, but rather positive. Nevertheless, by divine appointment it be-longs to the same category with the moral law, and must be considered apart of it. If this course of reasoning is correctand if it is not, we hopeyou will point it outit would not follow that the old Sabbath is doneaway, because Christ and his apostles sabbatized on the first day of theweek; but only that there are two Sabbaths instead of one.But we ask, by what right could Christ or his apostles alter thelaw of the Sabbath ? Do not be startled. We do not question our


11/28

ADDRESSED TO THE BAPTISTS. Saviour's divinity. We recognize him as over all, God blessed forever. But in all his ministry he acted under the appointment of theFather, and according to such restrictions as were contained in the lawand the prophets. By those restrictions, no laws were to be set asideat his coming, except such as were peculiar to the Jewish Econo-my ; such as " meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordin-ances, imposed until the time of reformation." Heb. ix. 10. To set asidethese, the law gave the Messiah an express grant. Heb. x. 9. Butthe very moment he should attempt to go beyond the limits of that grant,he would destroy all the evidence of his being the Messiah promisedand appointed. For it was by his exact conformity to the law, that hisclaims were established. Hence early in his ministry he declared thathe " came not to destroy the law or the ppophets." Matt. v. 17. Thedivinity of the Saviour gave him no authority, therefore, to set aside anylaws, except those which were "a shadow of things to come." Other-wise we should have God denying himself !God contradicting himself!On this account we say that neither Christ nor his apostles had anyright to alter the Sabbath. The New Testament records not a singleinstance of Christ's claiming such a right. When he avowed himselfLord of the Sabbath, he claimed no such right. He only claimed to de-termine what was the proper method of keeping it, what were breachesof it, and what were not. The Sabbath was made for man, and conse-quently it was his prerogative to decide what acts and duties answeredto the nature and design of the institution. THEREFORE, the Son ofman is Lord of the Sabbath. Mark ii. 28. It is worthy of being observed,also, that our Saviour does not claim even this authority on account ofhis divinity, but AS the Son of man.

In regard to the obligation resulting from apostolic example, it appearsto us that you have fallen into some errors. We are not convinced thaithe example of the apostles can be justly pleaded for anything else thanthe order and arrangement of the church. However proper it may be toimitate them in other respectsin the duties of the moral law for instanceyet, if it were not known to be proper, independent of their example,we cannot suppose their example would make it so. We must first as-certain, by some settled and infallible rule, whether their practice, isworthy of imitation. In regard to the ordering oi! church affairs there canbe no doubt, for they were sent upon this very errand, with the promiseofthe Holy Spirit to qualiiy them for the work. But the Sabbath is nota church ordinance. It is not an institution for the church as such, butfor all mankind. All reasoning with reference to it, from apostolic ex-ample, must therefore be very inconclusive. Even if we should admitthat the church is bound by such example with regard to the first dayof the week, yet this is the utmost extent to which our admissions can go.We cannot see how the institution becomes binding upon the world atlarge. Consequently we are compelled to maintain that an institution


12/28

Jfll APPEAL FOR THE SABBATH,which was originally given for all mankind, remains unaltered. Weare willing that the example and practice of the apostles should regulatethe church as to its ordinances and government, and herein we claim tofollow them as strictly as you do ; but when they are pleaded for any-thing more, we want first to know whether they conform to the expresslaw of God. Otherwise we must consider them as no more binding thanan apostle's quarrel with Barnabas.Acts xv. 39.

If this argument is well founded, we are led to a very satisfactory dis-posal of a question often proposed, viz. : Why do we never read in theNew Testament of Christian assemblies being convened as such, on theSabbath ? For if the Sabbath be not a church ordinance, but an institu-tion for mankind at large, it can be of no importance for us to know whatChristian assemblies cw such did with regard to it. All that is of realimportance for us to know is the precise bearing of the institution uponman cw manupon man as a rational and accountable creature. Onthis point the information is clear and decisive.The controversy between us and you appears to be brought down to a

very narrow compass. Did the apostles and primitive Christians sabbatizeon the first day of the week ? And, Is the wokld of mankind bmi,nd toimitate their example, or only the Chuech ? If upon a solemn and pray-erful consideration of this subject, you are persuaded that there is noproof that the early Christians regarded the first day as a Sabbath, (sub-stituted in place of the seventh,) and will come out, and honestly avowyour conviction, we have no fear that the controversy will be prolonged.For should you still be of opinion that some sort of notoriety was attachedto the day, and that Christians met for worship, we shall not be very soli-citous to dispute the point. The apostolic rule, " Let every man be fullypersuaded in his own mind," will then govern us.(See Rom. xiv. 5, 6.)Our concern is not that you keep the first day of the week, but that youkeep it in place of the Sabbath, thus making void the commandment ofGod. If once you discover, that Sunday is not the Sabbath by divine ap-pointment, and therefore cannot be enforced upon the conscience, we arepersuaded that your deep sense of the necessity of such an institution,will soon bring you to the observance of the ancient Sabbath.

II. But we proceed to address those of you who regard the sabbaticlaw as having been nailed to the cross, and consider the First Day of theWeek as an institution entirely new, regulated as to its observance whollyby the New Testament.

You, whom we now address, are exempt from some of the inconsisten-cies which we have exposed ; but your theory labors under very seriousdifficulties, and is to be regarded, on the whole, as more obnoxious to theinterests of religion, than the one we have been considering.

According to your position, the New Testament recognizes no Sabbathat all. Do not start at this charge. That it is repugnant to your feel-


13/28

AI)J)RESSED to THE BAPTISTS, 11ingg, we allow. You have never thought of anything else than entireabstinence from lahor on the first day of the week. It is your day ofrest, as well as worship. But on what ground do you make it a day ofrest ? What example have you for doing so ? What law of tlie NewTestament requires you to lay aside all your secular business? As sinis the transgression of the law, and where no law is there is no trans-gression,i. John iii. 4, Rom. iv. 15,how do you make it appear to besin to work on the day in question ? It is by the commandment that sinbecomes exceeding sinful.Rom. vii. 13. By what commandment doyou make it appear sinful to work on Sunday ? These are questions ofthe highest importance.Now suppose one of your brethren attends public worship on the firstday of the week, andto make his conformity to what is supposed to beapostolic example as perfect as possibleparticipates in the breaking ofbread. He then goes home, opens his shop, and commences labor, or intothe field to drive his plough. By what law will you convince him ofsin ? Not the law of the Sabbath as contained in the Decalogue, for thatyou hold to be abolished. Not any law of the New Testament winchsays " keep the first day of the week holy ; in it thou shalt not do anywork," for there is no such law. Not the law of apostolic example, forthere is no proof that the apostles ever gave such example. The veryutmost that you can with any show of reason pretend of their example,is, that they met together for worship and breaking of bread. To thisexample your brother has conformed to the very letterwho can say, hehas not in spirit also ? What now will you do with him ? " The Bible,and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." The Bible, therefore,is the Rule by which he is to be tried. Convict him of sin by this Rule,if you can.

But the case becomes still more difiicult, when you come to apply it tothose who are without the pale of the church. We have already seenthat apostolic example concerns merely the ordering and arrangement ofthe church. ' Attempt now to convince the unbeliever of sin in workingon the first day of the week. In order to do this, charge Apostolic exam-ple upon him. What is his reply. " I know not," says he, " ihat I ambound to imitate them in this matter. How does it appear that lam ? I willadmit, for arguments sake, that they celebrated the Resurrection on Smidayby religious worship ; but they also broke bread and partook of it by way ofcelebrating his death. If their example binds me in one particular, why notin the other? Prove to me,'" says he, " that any but the church assembledon the first day for worship, and I will do so too. But in the absence of allsuch proof I must conclude, their example has nothing to do with me ; unless,indeed, you can make it appear, that their example and practice were in con-formity to some law, which commanded them as rational creatures, indepen-dent of their relation to Christ and his church. When you can produce thatlaw, then I willfed hownd to obey it, and, imitate the apostles in their obedi.


14/28

22 AWEAI, tOR tHfi SABBATH,ence ioU; lut not Hit ilien." Such is the reasoning by which an unbe-liever may set aside all your attempts to charge sin upon him. Where,brethren, is your law which, like a barbed arrow, pierces the very soul,and fastens guilt upon the conscience ? Where is that law which speaksout its thunders, saying, thus saith the Almighty God, the Lord, the Makerof Heaven and Earth, it is the Sabbath day, in it thou shalt not do anywork ? To throw aside the law, which cuts and flames every way, reach-ing soul and spirit, joints and marrow, in order to deal with the ungodlyby mere apostolic example, is like muffling the sword for fear it willwound. Apostolic example is indeed powerful with those whose heartshave been made tender by the Spirit of God, but with others powerless.We are persuaded, brethren, that your conscientious scruples aboutlaboring on the first day of the week, never resulted from the mere con-templation of apostolic example. Such example, it is true, is all the lawyou acknowledge ; but this is the theory you have adopted since you cameto maturity, and began to think for yourselves. Your scruples have anearlier and difierent origin. They commenced with your childhood, whenyou were taught to consider the day as holy time. It was then impressedupon your mind, that Grod had, by express law, forbidden you to desecratethe day, and that you would incur his displeasure in case you should doso. The idea was them imbibed, that if you did not keep the day, youwould violate the fourth Commandment. This idea has grown with yourgrowth, and strengthened with your strength. It has obtained such com-manding influence over your feelings, that you cannot forbear keeping aday of rest, though your theory does not require it. Even to this day astrong impression rests upon your minds, that the fourth Commandmentcontains much of moral excellence ; too much to be thrown altogetheraway, notwithstanding your system of theology teaches its abrogation.-Such is the true secret of your tenderness of conscience. Apostolic ex-ample has in reality nothing to do with it. Following the secret monitionsof conscience, your prosperity is promoted in spite of your theologicalsystem. But sound reason discovers, that your experience and your the-ory are in opposition to each other. Some of the more thinking ones amongyou are aware of this, and are continually aiming at such a modificationof their theory, that their experience will harmonize with it. But be as-sured, here will be an everlasting conflict, until you come to acknowledgefully and heartily the claims of the sabbatic law.We are aware of that system of theology, which regards the New Tes-tament as furnishing the only code of laws by which men are bound sincethe death of Christ. We have looked at this doctrine with attention ; andso far as the order, government, and ordinances of the church are con-cerned, we admit its truth. As the laws and ordinances of the Jewishchurch were determined by the Old Testament, so the laws and ordinan-ces of the Christian church are determined solely by the New Testament.Therefore, we should say at once, the argument is yours, if the Sabbath


15/28

ADDRESSED Td^THE BAPTISTS. Id'Were a church ordinance. In such case, however, none hut the churchhas a Sabbath. But the question is not concerning church ordinances.In these we follow the New Testament as closely as yourselves. Thequestion is concerning an institution which has respect to mankind atlarge ;to man as man ; for the Saviour teaches us that the Sabbath wasmade for man. Now it will be a very hard matter to prove, that whenmen as rational creatures are concerned, the only code of laws by wliichthey are bound, is the New Testament. Let us put the matter to thetest. How will you prove that it is unlawful for a man to marry his sister,his daughter, or any other of near kin ? The New Testament utters nota word on the subject. It is not enough to say, it is implied in the lawwhich forbids adultery ; for it must first be proved to be a species of adul-tery. Nor will it do to say, the common sense of mankind is a sufficientlaw on the subject. For the moment we suppose that its unlawfulness isto be determined in this way, we abandon the argument that the NewTestament is the only code of laws, and resort to the common sense otmankind as furnishing a part of the code. But if the common sense ofmankind shall furnish a part of the code by which we are bound, w lioshall undertake to say how large a part? Besides, on this principle, thebook of divine revelation is not complete and perfect. It is a lamp to ourfeet only in part, and the common sense of mankind makes out the defi-ciency ! You are, therefore, driven to take your stand again upon theNew Testament. Finding you there again, we repeat the question, Howdo you prove hy your code, that a man may not marry his sister ? It is i)ri-possible. You must, of necessity, look to that division of the scripturesusually called the Old Testament ; for the New says not one word about it

.

Let us turn now to the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus, and weshall find a collection of laws exactly to the point. " None of you sliallapproach to any that is near of kin to him," (fee.v. 6. The degrees ofkindred are then expressly marked. Will it be objected, tliat these lawswere given particularly to the Jews, and to no other people ? We admitthey were given to the Jews, as indeed was the whole system of revela-tion in that age : but we cannot admit that they concerned no other classof people. For it is expressly shown in that chapter, that the matters ofwhich they took cognizance, were regarded as abominations in the Gen-tiles. Because of such things, the fierce wrath of Jehovah came downupon the Canaanites, and they were cast out from the land as loatlisome-ness. v. 24-30. If these things were viewed as abominable in the Ca.naanites, they surely were not ceretnonial pollutions. They were notmere Jewish laws. The fallacy of the doctrine is therefore sufficientlyexposed.We think you have fallen into error concerning the nature and designof that division of the scriptures commonly called the New Testament.We regard it not as the Law Book of mankind, in the strict and propersense ; but rather as a Treatise on Justification, in which are contained such


16/28

%4 Al'PEAL fOa TEE SABBATH,references to the law, and such quotations from it, as are necessary tothe complete elucidation of the subject. The preparation of this treatisewas of necessity delayed, until the great sacrifice for sin had been offered,and our High Priest had entered into the holy place. For as the sacrificeand intercession of our High Priest constitute the sole foundation of ourjustification, so " the way into the holiest of all was not yet made mani-fest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing."Heb. ix. 8. So muchof the plan of justification was illustrated to the people, as could be bymeans of the ritual service ; and that, together with the prophecies, laida foundation for them to believe that, in some way or other, they would bejust before God. So that hy faith the patriarchs were justified.Heb. xi.They knew it was to be somehow through the work of Him, who wastypified and promised as the great Redeemer. But understand the planthey could not, until the Redeemer came and died for them.

Because this treatise on justification could not be prepared until afterthe death of the High Priest, therefore it was not proper to organize gospelchurches. The only church that was suitable for that age was foundin the Jewish nation, and from its very nature was unfit for the world atlarge. It was, therefore, confined to that people. Moreover, because itwas not proper to organize gospel churches, until the way of justificationwas fully laid open, it was also not proper to lay down the laws andordinances of the church until that time. This accounts for the laws ofthe church being found only in the New Testament.Now, if the New Testament is to be regarded as a treatise on justifica-

tion, with such references to the Old as are necessary for the elucidationof the subject, rather than as the Law-Book for mankind at large ; the ideathat the Sabbath ought not to be looked for in the Old Testament, fallsto the ground. Nevertheless, to some minds it appears strange, thatwhile the New Testament writers mention all the other duties of theDecalogue, this is apparently omitted. In speaking of the sins of whichChristians were guilty before their conversion, not one word is said aboutSabbath breaking, though upon other suis they dwell with emphasis. Butthis admits of a very easy solution. Those \vTiters addressed two classesof converts ; those from among the Jews, and those from among the Gen-tiles. As to the former, they were already rigid to an extreme in keepingthe Sabbath. All that was necessary to do in their case, was to vindicatethe institution from Pharisaic austerities, and determine what was lawfulto be done, and what was not lawful. This was done by Christ. But asfor the Gentile converts, to charge them with having been guilty of thesin of Sabbath breaking in their state of heathenism, would have beenmanifest impropriety. For the Sabbath being for the most part a positiverather than a vwral precept, it could not be known without a revelation.But as the Gentiles had no revelation, this is a good reason why theapostle dwelt not upon this sin to charge it upon them, but only uponthose which were more obviously breaches of the Moral Law. Thus it


17/28

ADDRESSEp TO THE BAPTISTSw IB"appears, there was no necessity for any more particular mention of theSabbath to be made in the New Testament, than what is made.( But it is not our object in this address to cover the whole field of argu-ment. We design simply, by presenting some of the strong points, andexposing your inconsistencies, to stir up your attention to the subject.We are sure that the great majority of you have never given it a, thoroughinvestigation. For a complete discussion of the whole ground wo referyou to our publications. Will you read them ? Will you anxiouslyinquire, What is truth? Will you pray over the matter, saying, -'Lord,what wilt thou have us to do ?" Or, will you sleep over it, as if it wereof no great, p'-essing, practical.importance ?

^ III. But we must address that class of Baptists who consider neitherthe Old nor the New Testament to impose any obligation to observe a dayof rest, and advocate one merely on the ground of expediency. In somesections of our country. Baptists would consider it almost a slander upontheir denomination to intimate that there were persons of such anti-Sab-bath principles, wearing their livery. But any one, who is conversantwith the order at large, knows very well that it is no slander. There arethose who boldly avow such doctrine, and many others who do not denythat it is their real sentiment, though they are not anxious or forward toproclaim it upon the house tops. Whether this class embraces a verylarge proportion of the denomination, it is not necessary to inquire. It isour impression that the proportion is sufficiently large, to justify an eflbitfor their conversion to right views of Divine Truth.

If there is no day of rest enjoined by divine authority, and the matterrests wholly upon expediency, we see no reason, except that the voice ofthe multitude is against it, why you cannot as well observe the seventhas the first day of the week. There would be no sacrifice of consciencein so doing, while it would be a tribute of respect to those who feel thatthe keeping of the seventh day is an indispensable part of duty. But itis not on this principle particularly that we desire you to change yourground. Feeling that it is not our party that must be honored, but ratherdivine truth, and our party only for the sake of the truth, we would muchrather correct your doctrinal views.Of course, you do not deny that a day of rest was once enjoined upon

God's chosen people. It is only under the gospel that you suppose alldistinction of days to be annihilated. If then it is expedient, that a dayof rest should be observed, it follows irresistibly, that the annihihitioa ofall distinction in days by the gospel, was very INEXPEDIENT ! Andthus, whatever blessings the gospel dispensation brings to the humanrace, a strict following out of its principles would be INEXPEDIENT !and farther, that the Law, which enjoined a day of rest, had more of aneye to expediency, than the gospel has ! Consequently, that the gospel,though declared to be faultless, and capable of perfecting those who


18/28

19 APPEAt POtt THE SABBATff,believe, must nevertheless, foe expediency's sake, borrow a little Tielpfrom the abrogated rites of the law ! In other words, Grod, in settingaside a day of rest, committed an oversight, and left his work for man tomend ! ! Brethren, we see not how it is possible for you to escape suchmonstrous conclusions. They are the legitimate result of your princi-ples. Such principles you must have adopted in hot haste, without con-Bidering where they would land you. For we are not disposed to believeyou so completely destitute of piety, as willingly to abide by the resultof them. We entreat you to reconsider them, and adopt such as aremore in accordance with the spirit of our holy religion.When you advocate the observance of a day of rest on the ground ofexpediency, we are persuaded that you do so in view of the bearing yoy^perceive it to have upon the well-being of mankind. But still the ques-^tion will arise, Has the gospel less regard to the well-being of mankind,than the law had ? Look at the humanity of the institution. How ne-cessary that both man and beast should rest one day in seven. Howevident that they cannot endure uninterrupted toil. How perfectly wellestablished, that, if doomed to constant labor, they sink under the prema-ture exhaustion of their powers. So well is this established, that we can-not put such a low estimate upon your judgment, as to suppose it neces-sary to enter upon any proof of it. But the question returns. Does thegospel breathe less humanity than the law ? Or, consider the bearing ofthe institution upon the interests of religion. It affords opportunity formen to be instructed in the great things which pertain to their salvationand unless they were thus called away from their labors, it would be im-possible to bring religious instruction into contact with their minds. Doesthe gospel afford less advantage in this respect, than the Law did ? Didthe Law provide a season for instructing the people in religion as it the7istood ? and does the gospel provide no season for instructing them in re-ligion as it now stands ? Must they be instructed in types, but not in thesubstance 7in prophecy, but not in the fulfilment of prophecy ? Noone will be responsible for the affirmative of these questions.

If the New Dispensation actually has abrogated the Sabbath, we do notbelieve that it is expedient to observe it. We cannot believe, however,that an institution so important to the civilization, refinement, and reli-gious prosperity of mankind, has been abrogated. We refer you to ourpublications, and to the publications of those who have, in common withus, defended the perpetuity of the sabbatic law ; and we entreat you toreconsider your ground. The doctrine of expediency ! What a fruitfulsource of corruption has it been to the church of Grod ! Not an anti-Christian, popish abomination, but what pleads something of this kind.Do, dear brethren, let ^ be expunged from your creed.Brethren of the Baptist Denomination.You are a great and

growing people. Your influence is felt throughout the length and breadth


19/28

i.l)DKESSED rro THE BAPTISTS- l?of our land. We rejoice in your prosperity. " May the Lord make youto increase and abound in love one towards another, and toward all men."In your prosperity we behold, in a measure, our own. Your baptism isour baptism. Your church government is our government. Your doc-trinal principles are ours ; and there is nothing which constitutes anyreal ground of separation, except the great and important subject we nowurge upon your attention.The popularity you have gained as a Denomination, however, is not

owing to your Sabbath principles. It is founded entirely on your viewsconcerning the initiating ordinance of the gospel. These views are char-acterized by that perfect simplicity, which markes every divine institution.Hence you have won the affections of the common people, while, if youhad attempted to operate on them by a more complicated theory, failurewould have been the result.

This induces us to urge upon your notice the exceeding simplicity of theSabbatarian argument, compared with all those theories which stand inopposition to it. It is adapted to persons of weak capacities, of whomthere are thousands in the kingdom of Christ. Any illiterate person canopen the Bible, and point to chapter and verse saying, "the seventh dayis the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." This is plain ; he can understandit. But talk to him about redemption being greater than creation ; re-demption finished by the resurrection of Christ ; an event so importantought to be commemorated; in order to do this, the day of the Sabbathwas changed from the seventh to the first day of the week :for allwhich there is not a single " thus saith the Lord," nothing but the uncer-tain deductions of human reason. Can he understand it ? No. Itrequires an elevation of intellect which God has not given him. Theinferences and deductions are beyond his.capacities. How then is he torender an intelligent obedience ? If he conform his practice to the theorythus set before him, it will not be because he understands it, but becausehe is willing to trust the guidance of his mind to those who, he thinks,know more than he does himself. Thisj therefore, is strong intei-nal evi-dence, that the keeping of the first day is not of God. For CJod's Bookis adapted not only to those of elevated intellect, but to the ignorant andrude. Everything concerning our practice is plain even to wayfaringmen. Were it otherwise, we should conclude that the Bible is not aninspired production. If it did not come down to the capacities of all, weshould infer that it was not made by Him who made all minds. Indeedit would not, in such case, be a revelation to all, but only to the moretalented. But it is a revelation to all ; and he that obeys God, must doit for himself; he that repents and believes, must do so for himself; andat the great day, every one of us shall give account for himself untoGod. It is of the very last importance, therefore, that every one knowfor himself the foundation of his faith and practice.

In thus urging the simplicity of the argument for the Sabbath, we are


20/28

Ifl APPEAL POB. THE SABBATH,but doing what you do in regard to Baptism. Compare the cases. Aman of considerable intellect can reason from the Abrahamic Covenant,lay propositions together, and draw inferences and deductions, until, finall}',he makes it pretty clear to his own mind, that the children of the flesh,these are the children of God ; Paul to the contrary notwithstanding.But how is it with some good old Baptist sister, who can hardly lay twoideas together, and draw a logical inference from them? Why, shecannot tell anything about this reasoning from the Abrahamic Covenant.It is something she does not understand. But she can open her Bible,and point to chapter and verse for believer's baptism. She puts her fingerupon something that is just adapted to her capacities. As she has a soulto save, an obedience to render, and an account to give, all for herself,her practice is accordingly. Brethren, think this matter over, and seewhether your reasoning on the Sabbath, is not very much akin to that ofthose, who reason from the Abrahamic Covenant to Baptism. Thinkseriously, whether it does not render intelligent obedience impossible tovast numbers of Christians. Think whether a course of reasoning whichdarkens a very simple subject, is not more specious than solid.

Again, your children arc to be early instructed in this matter. Howdo you succeed in making them understand it? Is your little childcapable of comprehending all this argument, which you found upon thefinishing of redemption by the resurrection of Christ ? Can you pointhim to any plain passage, where Christ authorizes a change of the Sab-bath ? How do you feel, when the little creature says, in the simplicityof his heart, " FatherMother, does not the fourth Commandment requirethe observance oi the seventh day of the week ? But do we not keep thefirst day ? I should think this is not keeping the Commandment." Onewould think, you would be forcibly reminded of that scripture, " Out of themouths of babes and sucklings Thou hast ordained strength."Ps. viii. 2.The extensive operations in which you are engaged for the conversion

of the world, render it in the highest degree important, that you shouldnot err on a question like this. If you are right, you ought to be verycertain of it. Among the heathen you are extending the observance ofSunday, along with all your other sentiments. If you are thus sowingthe seeds of error instead of truth, the evils who can calculate ? Henceyou cannot too early begin to review your ground. Consider the diffi-culties your missionaries already have to encounter, because of unscrip-tural sentiments propagated among the heathen by those who loved theirsouls. The poor, perishing idolaters are witnesses to the clashing ofdoctrine between Jesus Christ's men, and they ask, "Why is this? Youhave come to give us a gospel which professes to viake its followers 'perfectin one,' and yet you yourselves are divided.'' Yet you cannot in conscienceabandon your principles, nor dare you, in your translations, give to asentence or a particle one single turn, which will not fully express themind of the Holy Spirit. Dare you, then, without feeling the most entire ^


21/28

ADDRESSED TO THE BAPTISTS. 13certainty, teach them that God says " Remember the first day of the weekto keep it holy." The responsibility of the missionary, in thi>j respect, isnot less than where his translation is concerned. Does ho feel the sameawful sense of responsibility ?From the heathen turn to the contemplation of the Jewish nation. Thetime cannot be far distant, when those who " as touching the election arebeloved for the fathers' sakes," shall be called to behold the glory ofGrod in the face of Him they have so long long rejected. But in orderto this, a voice from the divine word cries, "Cast ye up, cast ye up,prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of mypeople." Have Christians seriously considered what this stumbling-blockis ? For our own part, we are persuaded that nothing can be more justlycalled by this name, than the general abandonment, on the part of Chris-tians, of the Sabbath of the Lord. The Jews, taking it for granted, with-out examination, that this abandonment is really taught by the Christianreligion, suppose that its author cannot be the true Messiah. They haveseen through eveiy period of their nation's history, that God has put sig-nal honor upon this institutioi;!. They have seen its sacredness elevatedhigh above that of the ceremonial institutions. They have hearrl theirprophets dwell upon the profanation of it as the crying sin of the land, onaccount of which the sore judgments of heaven came down upon it. It,is true, some teach that the whole Mosaic system was clothed with asmuch sacredness as the Sabbath ; and that it was not for the sui of Sahbathbreaking, any more than for a disregard of the ritual service in general,that they suffered the wrath of Jehovah. But such persons must have paidonly a superficial attention to the subject. The attentive reader cannotbut be struck with the fact, that while in the prophets the Sabbatli isexalted as of vast importance to the nation, and all its prosperity, and tliefavor of Grod, seemingly suspended on the proper keeping of it, ceremo-nial usages are comparatively depreciated.

Since the Sabbath holds such a sacredness throughout the ancient ora-cles of Gk)dsince the Israelites have taken their lessons of obedience to itunder " the rod of his wrath"since no grant was given to the Messiahto set it aside, nor the least intimation ever made to the Jews that it wouldbe set asidecan we wonder that they think that teacher to be an im-postor who should break this Commandment, and teach men so ?J, But there is a crisis approachingthe day is near, and it hastctligreatlywhen it will be indispensable that all those wlio truly love theLord Jesus Christ, have their "loins girt about with truth." Popery ispreparing for another desperate struggle. The great principle of theReformation, that " the Scriptures are the only Rule of faith," is to bediscussed anew. In the Church of England this discussion has alreadycommenced. Rome has opened her sluices, and anti-Christian corruptionagain threatens to flood the Church of God. As the water naturally seeksBuoh channels as may be already prepared, so will it be with this doc-


22/28

trine. * Wnatljranch of Zion will be next troubled ? Probably that whichmakes the next widest departure from the great Protestant principle.Then that which is next in order ; and so on. For it cannot reasonablybe expected to stop, until it reach that order of people which is governedby the Bible alone. Upon all others the desolation must be more or lessextensive. For those who acknowledge the principle of departing fromthe Bible in ever so small a degree, may be expected to exemplify it toan indefinite extent, when the circumstances of the times are so modifiedas to give occasion for it. As for yourselves, you do not admit the prin-ciple of departing from the scriptures, but rather hold it in abhorrence.The language of your creeds is explicit on this point ; and we know of nodenomination so forward to plead a strict conformity to this principle asyourselves. Yet it is impossible for you to pretend, with any show ofmodesty, that the scriptures expressly enjoin the keeping of Sunday as aSabbath to the Lord. You cannot say, from scripture authority, that theapostles observed it as such. Nevertheless, your creed declares that it oughtto be so observed ; and your practice accords with your creed. Where-fore it is as evident as mathematical demonstration, that you do departfrom the great Protestant principle. Consequently, if our views be correctin regard to the crisis which is at hand, the time cannot be far distant,when your own denomination will in some modified form be affected withthe heresy. You will then be compelled to abandon every principle andpractice, which can give the heresy the smallest advantage.Do you think, brethren, that in your present position, you are prepared

for the great struggle ? When the Puseyite, replying to those who con-tend for the Protestant maxim, refers to the observance of Sunday, andsays, " Here we are absolutely compelled to resort to the aid of ancientusage, as recorded not by the inspired, but by the uninspired writers ;"are you ready for the issue ? Can you confute what he says ? Whenanother one says, " The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy Grod :we celebrate the Jirst. Was this done by divine command ? No. I donot recollect that the Saviour, or the apostles, say we shall rest on the firstday of the week instead of the seventh ;" and then concludes, " The samereasons which urge you to dissent from the observance of the three grandfestivals of the Church of England, ought to opeTate with you respectingthe Sabbath ;"are you prepared to join issue with him ? Can you jus-tify yourselves on your own principles ? If you can, we will confess ourshort-sightedness. But indeed we fear, we tremble, in view of the crisiswhich is approaching, when we look at the traditional usages prevailingamong Christians, and consider with what a tenacious grasp they are held.O Lord God Almighty ! Thou who hast sworn that ' thy kindness shallnot depart from thy church, nor the covenant of thy peace be removed ;'let not thy truth fall in the contest.We mean not to goad your feelings, by chajging upon you any of theabominations of Popery. We are sure you would not cherish one of them,


23/28

ADDRESSED TO THE BAPTISTS. 21if you were conscious of it. But we take it for granted, that those whoare forward to take the mote out of their brother's eye, are willing to havethe beam taken out of their own. You have charged Pedobaptist denomi-nations, over and over, with upholding Popery's chief pillar. You havetold them, that their zeal against the man of sin would avail them but lit-tle, until they first rid themselves of his traditions. You have talked feel-ingly of the sin of encumbering the ordinances of God with human inven-tions. You have read the church of Christ many a good lesson on theimportance of holding the truth in its purity. In all this you have, doubt-less, been sincere. We have no fault to find with you ; for you have onlyfollowed the Bible direction, " cry aloud, spare not, show my people theirtransgression." In conformity with this direction, we would endeavor toact our part, as faithful reprovers. Yet our desire is, to do it with meek-ness, considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted. It may beweknow notthat some of the abominations of the man of sin are cleavingto us. If so, " let the righteous smite us, it shall be a kindness ; let themreprove us, it shall be an excellent oil which shall not break our head."

Turn, brethren, to the 7th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel, and 35thverse. You there find one spoken of who " shall speak great wordsagainst the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High,and think to change times and laws." You have had no difficulty infinding in this prophecy a reference to the law of baptism, as one of thelaws which this great power has changed ; but you have not shown satis-factorily what are the times. You have usually referred them to the nu-merous festivals and holy-days, which have been multiplied by the churchof Rome. But these were, times established ; not times changed. Willyou please to expound this passage a little more clearly 1 Will you tellus whether, under the gospel, there is any sacred time except the Sab-bath ? We will not be unreasonably confident, but we are much mista.ken, if you can give any clear and satisfactory construction to this pro-phecy, without finding that something of Rome still cleaves to you.; Suffer us here to declare our conviction, that you could take no moreeffectual step, toward converting the Christian world to right views aboutbaptism, than to embrace the Sabbath of the Bible. In your discussionswith Pedobaptists, you are constantly referred to the change of the Sab-bath, as proof that some things may be binding, which the scriptures donot expressly enjoin. You have never met this argument fairly andfully. To be sure, you always make an attempt to meet it. But howdo you do it ? By proving that Christ expressly enjoined his followers tosahhatize on the first day of the week ? By showing from express scrip-ture testimony, that the apostles did actually restfrom their labors on thatday ? No. Neither of these things have you ever shown : nor can youshow them. The whole head and front of your proofif proof it may becalledamount only to this; that the apostles and primitive Christiananut U^eiher for worshij^ on that day. It is true, by such a course you


24/28

2!2 APPEAL FOR THE SABBATH,have generally talked your opponents into silence, because by exposingfully the defect of your reply, it would only render their own transgres-sion the more glaring. But while you silenced them, you did not con-vince them. While they saw that for one of your own customs you couldnot plead a " thus saith the Lord," they felt comparatively easy underall your rebukes, and naturally enough thought it not very important,that they should have a "thus saith the Lord," for the sprinkling ofbabes.But a most important consideration, in view of this subject, is the influ-

ence of your large and powerful denomination upon an unconvertedworld. Whatever your theory about the perpetuity of the sabbatic lawwhatever your doubts and scruples about the use of the term Sabbathunder the gospelyou cannot rid yourselves of a deep sense of the im-portance of a day of rest to the world at large. Hence the resolutions ofyour churches and conventional bodies, with regard to the profanation ofwhat you call the Lord's Day. Hence your plain, out-spoken censuresof running cars, stages, steamboats, and other public conveyances, on thisday. Hence your griefs and lamentations over those who make it a dayof recreation, or mirth. Hence your readiness to cooperate with thosebodies which are organized to suppress, if possible, the violation of theSabbath. We admire the principle which governs you in all this ; butwe lament that it is not regulated by a better understanding of the sub-ject. If you would promote right principles, you must be careful thatyour proofs, and examples for illustration, are pertinent, and free from alluncertainty. We are fully persuaded, that your Recommendations andPledges, your Resolutions and Associational Acts, will always meet withdefeat, until you can back them up by an express law of God, which willurge and goad the violator's conscience wherever he may go. The con-sciences of guilty men cannot be reached by the method you are pursu-ing. You behold them desecrating the Sunday, and, in order to makethem lay it to heart as a sin, you bring down upon themwhat ? Apos-tolic example ? New Testament intimations, and far-fetched inferences ?No. None of these do you think of employing. But the Law, the all-searching, sin-rebuking Law of Grod, is the only means you think of insuch a case. Nothing else suits your purpose, be your theory what itmay. But hear their reply. " Is the law of the Commandment upon usTO-DAY ? That it was YESTERDAY, we allow ; for it says, ' theseventh day.' That the law of the Commandment lies against us everyday, you will not pretend ; but only one day in seven. If that one dayvfB.s yesterday, you are yourselves as guilty as we ; and we, therefore, feelcomparatively comfortable. To be sure, some sense of the necessity ofkeeping the Sabbath holy, does at times rest upon our minds ; and ourconsciences, for the moment, reproach us ; but when we see you, and allthe Christian world, living in the neglect of it, we feel quite easy again,pmd think our sin to be but a light one," Such may not be their precise


25/28

ADDRESSED TO THE BAPTISTS. 23language; but it is the exact expression of their hearts' feelings. Thuseven the Law fails in your hands, because you attempt to make it speakwhai it toiU not speak.

If you ask us, " Do you meet with success in attempting to reach theconsciences of guilty, unbelieving menV we reply, that we have nodifficulty, except so far as you, and the whole body of First-Da^;^ Chris-tians, stand in the way. We bring them to admit, openly and honestly,the claims of Grod's law, and a sense of guilt momentarily rests uponthem. But immediately they turn to contemplate your practice, and theirhearts become hardened. We do, therefore, affectionately, but earnestly,invite you to consider, how tremendous is your influence toward perpctu-atmg Sabbath-profanation in the land. Your numbers, your learning,your talents, your wealth, your general respectability, all combine tooperate with overwhelming effect in this matter.Our observations, if correct, go to show what a source of danger the

Sunday heresy is to the Moral Law. The Sabbath is a most importantprecept of this law ; " the golden clasp," as an old writer quaintly observes," which joins the two tables together ; the sinew in the body of laws, whichwere written with God's own finger; the intermediate precept, which par-ticipates of the sanctity of both tables ; and the due observance of whichis the fulfilling of the whole law." This important precept is either setaside entirely ; or its edge, and keenness, and all its power to cut a sin-ner's soul, so muffled by a transfer to another day, that the united elFortsof the church can do little or nothing toward impressing it on the con-science. Here, then, is a relaxation of the standard of morality ; andwhile the standard is relaxed with regard to this one precept, in vain dowe look for the Law, as a whole, to appear glorious in the eyes of men.

This remark will be strengthened, if we consider to what inoonsistencieathe advocates of Sunday are driven. Some, in their zeal to defend it,even go so far as to deny the Moral Law to be a rule of conduct to Chris-tians. Others, though they admit the Law to be a rule of conduct, can-not relieve themselves of, at least, seeming to undervalue it. When theSabbath discussion is out of sight, they speak out clearly, and withoutequivocation, giving the fullest proof that they regard the Law as the im-changeable standard of obedience. But, at other times, they reason fromthe New Dispensation, in a manner so vague, and indefinite, that one ispuzzled to tell whether they regard the gospel as enforcing strict obedi-ence to the Law, or not. Now he that is established in the clear truth, ishampered with no such difficulties. There is, with him, not only thenaked and abstract admission, that the Moral Law is unchangeably bind-ing ; but there appears such a beautiful, and perfect conformity betweenthis admission and the principles he inculcates, that the most commonminds are struck with it, and every doubt is scattered.While you are fettered by such difficulties, is there no danger that the

liaw will lose its sacredness ia the eyes of the people ? Surely there is.


26/28

34 APPEAL FOB. THE SABBATH,*

There is danger, also, that your system of theology will be corrupted inother particulars. Error goes not alone. Could an opinion exist in themind, circumscribed, and isolated, without affecting any of our otherprinciples, it would be comparatively harmless. But it is not more of atruth, that a man who utters one falsehood, is obliged to tell twenty moreto hide it ; than that he who supports one error, is obliged to forge num-berless others to give consistency to his creed. It is also a truth, whichreflection and daily observation will confirm, that nearly, if not quite, allthe heresies which ever infested the church of God, are traceable to someloose motives concerning the Moral Law. Nothing, therefore, can bemore necessary, than that our creed give the greatest possible prominenceto the law as a standard of holiness ; and that our customs be in perfectc


27/28

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

A SIX DOZXAR BOOK a a maolasx MrxuL.%,x*iTHE CHRISTIAN'S GIFT FOR 1844. "

JUST PUBLISHED,THE MOST SPLENDID PICTORIAL WORK ON BIBLE HISTORY EVEROFFERED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

Embellished with Several Hundred New and Fine Engravings.Tlie whole work (two volumes in one), making TOOlarg^e octavo pages, elegantly printed, and bound in themost finished style of modern bookmaking, and offered at the low price of $3.00 per copy.

SEARS' NEW AND COMPLETE HISTORYHOLY BIBLE,

AS CONTAINED IN THE

2&^ ^^m ^21W 12*IB^1^aMIi^l^^3FROM THE

CEEATION OF THE WORLD TO THE FULL ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITY:CONTAINING

A. CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVERY REMARKABLE TRANSACTIONRECORDED IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES DURING A PERIOD OFUPWARD OF FOUR THOUSAND YEARS.WITH COPIOUS NOTES, CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY,

FORMING ANILLUSTRATED COMMENTARY OF THE SACRED TEXT.

PART LTHE OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.PART ILTHE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.BY ROBERT SEARS.AIDES BY THE WRITINGS OF OUR MOST CELEBRATED BIBLICAL SCHOLARS, AND OTHER LEARNED

PERSONS, WHO HAVE MADE THE SCRIPTURES THEIR STUDY.TWO VOLUMES IN ONE.

m?* LiTEBATUEE, profane and sacred, is here united with the arts of printing and engraving, to produceone of the most valuable and interesting works ever issued from the American press. Commentators,lexicographers, oriental travellers, and Biblical critics of the greatest name, have been extensively andcarefully consulted in preparing this work. The editor trusts it will be found worthy of the patronage ofChristian pastors, instructors, and parents of all denominations ; and well calculated, under the Divineblessing, to enlighten the understanding, purify the heart, and promote that K.novvledge by wliich we mayobtain happiness in this world, and eternal salvation in that wliich is to come.ROBERT SEARS, Editor.

nrT" Agents, responsible men, are wanted to sell the above work, in every town and village throughoutthe United States and British North American provinces. For particulars, &c., address (post paid),E. WALKER & CO., 114 Fulton street. New York.nz? A very liberal discount made by the quantity ; and circulars supplied in any quantity to Agents.


28/28

THE SABBATH YINDICATOR.This Pekiodicaj, is designed to be published monthly by the General Sabbath Tract

Society, under the editorial charge of Rev. George B. Utter, for sale and gratuitous dis-tribution. The contributions to the funds of the Society do not yet warrant the Directorsin announc^g its regular issue ; until which, additional numbers will be added from timeto time as circumstances will allow.

,

It will be. neatly printed on eight quarto pages, and published for the Society by J. "Wji*-ciiESTER, at the New World Office, No. 30 Ann street, and by I. P. Labagh, 138 Fultonstreet. It is hoped that such as "are desirous of seeing the Sabbath restored on the soundbasis of the Commandment, will interest themselves to give it the widest circulation. Toencourage this, it will be mailed to Subscribers at the following rates:

Single Subscribers, 50 cents a year, or 12 numbers.4 copies to one address, (2 sheets,) .... 1 00 "10 " " ' (5 ").... 2 0040 " 5 0090 " " 10 00

To Churches, Societies, or individuals, wishing them for distnbution, they will be soldas follows

:

70 conies sent to one address, by mail, $1 00103 " " " " 1 25

1000 " " " " 10 00

VALUABLE WOEKS ON THE SABBATH.FOR SALE rOR THE GEN. SAB. TRACT SOC. BT

E. WALKER fe CO. 114 FULTON ST.DIFFERENT SENTIMENTS ENTERTAINED IN CHRISTENDOM RELATIVETO THE WEEKLY SABBATH. By Rev. R. Bamside, of London. A few copiesonly on hand.

LETTERS ON THE SABBATH, between Wm. Parkinson and Wm. B. Maxson, con-taining the whole correspondence.Also, the following numbers of a Series ofSABBATH TRACTS.

No. 1An Apology for introducing the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment to the con-sideration of the Christian Public. 28 pp.

No. 2Moral Nature and Scriptural Observance of the Sabbath. 52 ppNo. 3Authorhy for the Change of the Day of the Sabbath. 28 pp.

Documents

Seventh Day Baptist Address to Baptists in America, 1843